Incredible

[flockofseagulls104]

Here's the end point. Period.

PROVE ME WRONG:
As Hawley says, if you cannot emphatically state that biological men cannot get pregnant, you have zero, nada, not one ounce of credibility on any other subject.

i hesitate to get involved in this because I know my words won't change anyone's mind, but here I go.

Can a biological man get pregnant? With our current state of medical knowledge I would say no. But it may be possible in the future to allow this - surgery to add a uterus, fallopian tubes, etc. and hormones to facilitate the process.

But here are two question for you, flock: What about "biological women" who can't get pregnant for one reason or another? If pregnancy is the only criterion for judging who is male and who is female, what do you say to the infertile, those who have had hysterectomies because of medical problems, or for other reasons cannot conceive?

I asked a specific question. It is a black and white question with a black and white answer. I did not ask for rhetoric. Please refrain from it. It is not relevant.

To your questions I give you 2 letters that will be the determinant 99.999% of the time: X and Y

[mrkelley23]

Here's the end point. Period.

PROVE ME WRONG:
As Hawley says, if you cannot emphatically state that biological men cannot get pregnant, you have zero, nada, not one ounce of credibility on any other subject.

i hesitate to get involved in this because I know my words won't change anyone's mind, but here I go.

Can a biological man get pregnant? With our current state of medical knowledge I would say no. But it may be possible in the future to allow this - surgery to add a uterus, fallopian tubes, etc. and hormones to facilitate the process.

But here are two question for you, flock: What about "biological women" who can't get pregnant for one reason or another? If pregnancy is the only criterion for judging who is male and who is female, what do you say to the infertile, those who have had hysterectomies because of medical problems, or for other reasons cannot conceive?

I asked a specific question. It is a black and white question with a black and white answer. I did not ask for rhetoric. Please refrain from it. It is not relevant.

To your questions I give you 2 letters that will be the determinant 99.999% of the time: X and Y

Ah, so we're going with the chromosomal answer. In that case, the answer to your direct question is emphatically yes, a biological male can get pregnant. In fact, that is how some people learn that they are actually intersex, is when they get pregnant. Yes, it's a small minority, but it's not zero. So what do you say to the hundreds of people who are born intersex every year in the US? Screw you, you're an exception?

How about we go with the principles that the Tea Party was originally organized on and get the government off our backs? Or in this case, off of our genitalia?

[flockofseagulls104]

Here we go.
Let's say I ask: Do bears shit in the woods? Yes or no?

Leftist answers:
What are you going to tell the bears in zoos? Are you excluding them?
You haven't defined what kind of bear-grizzly, black, koala?
You are a racist.
Some might shit in a clearing or on some humans property. What will you say to them, you bearophobe?


I am not saying anything to anyone. I asked a simple question that has a simple answer. My next question is: why are you so defensive about providing the correct answer?

[silverscreenselect]

So, to the two people that have decided NOT to prove me wrong, I ask you directly:

Can a biological man get pregnant? YES OR NO.

When witnesses testify before a Senate committee, they typically make an opening statement, then each Senator (alternating by party in terms of seniority), has five minutes to question the witness. Depending on how long-winded the questions or answers get, they sometimes ask very few questions in those five minutes. And when most if not all Senators on the committee have a pre-existing point of view about the testimony, the five minutes often becomes less of an effort to elicit genuine information or clarification and more of an effort to tear down or bolster the witness's testimony.

Hawley wasn't interested in the side effects, if any, of the abortion pill or in the doctor's medical or scientific qualifications. He was looking for an answer that would allow him to steer the testimony down a rabbit hole of discussion about transgender issues, a topic that is much less popular with the American public than abortion pills are. And ideally (in Hawley's mind), after his five minutes were up, the next Democratic Senator would spend their five minutes trying to rehabilitate the witness. thus steering the discussion farther and farther away from the issue supposedly at hand, the safety of abortion pills.

Hawley knew this; the doctor knew this; I knew this; and I'm pretty sure Flock knew this since he has headlined most of his responses in this thread "Prove me wrong" in caps and bold letters. That's Charlie Kirk's debating strategy, which was intended to "win" debates by framing questions the way he wanted, putting and keeping his opponents on the defensive, and steering the later portions of the debate along the lines he wanted. The strategy often worked, because his opponents usually weren't skilled debaters. He fared worst in those debates where his opponents were prepared for his tactics. (By the way, in a formal debate which has strict rules, his strategy would never work.You win debates by proving your point rather than challenging opponents to prove their handpicked framing of the issue wrong.)

The doctor knew what Hawley was up to and tried to avoid the trap, rather awkwardly and inartfully. (She's not a skilled debater either.) Whereupon Hawley and his followers, (including Flock and other righties on this Bored), pivoted from a possible subsequent discussion on trans issues into an attempt to tear down the doctor's credibility as a medical and scientific expert. That doctor knows more about the issues she testified about than Hawley, Flock, and everyone else on this Bored (with the probable exception of Weyoun) combined. And I'm very confident that the doctor knows more than RFK Jr.'s handpicked panel of flunky quacks who are promoting junk science to the detriment of the American public. (I would have no qualms whatsoever about visiting this doctor for medical treatment.) And Hawley knew that and I'm pretty sure Flock knows that (although he'll probably defensively react by saying "how dare you claim you know what I'm thinking") Hawley and his followers rather adroitly (and illogically) turned her responses into "proof" her testimony and qualifications were worthless.

So, Flock, take your victory lap, for whatever it's worth. You haven't proved anything about the doctor's qualifications. You haven't proved anything about the safety of abortion pills. You haven't proved anything about any trans issue. The only thing you've "proved" is that Charlie Kirk's tactics sometimes work to obfuscate genuine issues. And in doing so, you've indirectly shown you know less about what you're talking about than several members of this Bored who have treated your nonsense as a serious question and tried to make a serious response that won't leave them open to "gotcha" followups.

[flockofseagulls104]

Wow.
I wasn't out to prove any of those things. I just wanted to see how far gone into indoctrination you are. The simple, scientific and truthful answer to MY question is NO. Biological men cannot get pregnant, period, end of story. They do not produce eggs and do not have a womb. That you felt that you had to write a book in providing your answer is very telling.

[BackInTex]

So, to the two people that have decided NOT to prove me wrong, I ask you directly:

Can a biological man get pregnant? YES OR NO.

When witnesses testify before a Senate committee, they typically make an opening statement, then each Senator (alternating by party in terms of seniority), has five minutes to question the witness. Depending on how long-winded the questions or answers get, they sometimes ask very few questions in those five minutes. And when most if not all Senators on the committee have a pre-existing point of view about the testimony, the five minutes often becomes less of an effort to elicit genuine information or clarification and more of an effort to tear down or bolster the witness's testimony.

Hawley wasn't interested in the side effects, if any, of the abortion pill or in the doctor's medical or scientific qualifications. He was looking for an answer that would allow him to steer the testimony down a rabbit hole of discussion about transgender issues, a topic that is much less popular with the American public than abortion pills are. And ideally (in Hawley's mind), after his five minutes were up, the next Democratic Senator would spend their five minutes trying to rehabilitate the witness. thus steering the discussion farther and farther away from the issue supposedly at hand, the safety of abortion pills.

Hawley knew this; the doctor knew this; I knew this; and I'm pretty sure Flock knew this since he has headlined most of his responses in this thread "Prove me wrong" in caps and bold letters. That's Charlie Kirk's debating strategy, which was intended to "win" debates by framing questions the way he wanted, putting and keeping his opponents on the defensive, and steering the later portions of the debate along the lines he wanted. The strategy often worked, because his opponents usually weren't skilled debaters. He fared worst in those debates where his opponents were prepared for his tactics. (By the way, in a formal debate which has strict rules, his strategy would never work.You win debates by proving your point rather than challenging opponents to prove their handpicked framing of the issue wrong.)

The doctor knew what Hawley was up to and tried to avoid the trap, rather awkwardly and inartfully. (She's not a skilled debater either.) Whereupon Hawley and his followers, (including Flock and other righties on this Bored), pivoted from a possible subsequent discussion on trans issues into an attempt to tear down the doctor's credibility as a medical and scientific expert. That doctor knows more about the issues she testified about than Hawley, Flock, and everyone else on this Bored (with the probable exception of Weyoun) combined. And I'm very confident that the doctor knows more than RFK Jr.'s handpicked panel of flunky quacks who are promoting junk science to the detriment of the American public. (I would have no qualms whatsoever about visiting this doctor for medical treatment.) And Hawley knew that and I'm pretty sure Flock knows that (although he'll probably defensively react by saying "how dare you claim you know what I'm thinking") Hawley and his followers rather adroitly (and illogically) turned her responses into "proof" her testimony and qualifications were worthless.

So, Flock, take your victory lap, for whatever it's worth. You haven't proved anything about the doctor's qualifications. You haven't proved anything about the safety of abortion pills. You haven't proved anything about any trans issue. The only thing you've "proved" is that Charlie Kirk's tactics sometimes work to obfuscate genuine issues. And in doing so, you've indirectly shown you know less about what you're talking about than several members of this Bored who have treated your nonsense as a serious question and tried to make a serious response that won't leave them open to "gotcha" followups.

Or perhaps Hawley was just attempting to show the expectations folks should have about the testimony this doctor was about to give, that her testimony would be biased politically and not firmily based on science. I think he did show that. She refused to answer simple questions with the correct science supporting the answer due to her politics so any answer she would give could, and should, be considered biased.

Sort of a base line test, like when giving a polygraph.

[tlynn78]

So, to the two people that have decided NOT to prove me wrong, I ask you directly:

Can a biological man get pregnant? YES OR NO.

When witnesses testify before a Senate committee, they typically make an opening statement, then each Senator (alternating by party in terms of seniority), has five minutes to question the witness. Depending on how long-winded the questions or answers get, they sometimes ask very few questions in those five minutes. And when most if not all Senators on the committee have a pre-existing point of view about the testimony, the five minutes often becomes less of an effort to elicit genuine information or clarification and more of an effort to tear down or bolster the witness's testimony.

Hawley wasn't interested in the side effects, if any, of the abortion pill or in the doctor's medical or scientific qualifications. He was looking for an answer that would allow him to steer the testimony down a rabbit hole of discussion about transgender issues, a topic that is much less popular with the American public than abortion pills are. And ideally (in Hawley's mind), after his five minutes were up, the next Democratic Senator would spend their five minutes trying to rehabilitate the witness. thus steering the discussion farther and farther away from the issue supposedly at hand, the safety of abortion pills.

Hawley knew this; the doctor knew this; I knew this; and I'm pretty sure Flock knew this since he has headlined most of his responses in this thread "Prove me wrong" in caps and bold letters. That's Charlie Kirk's debating strategy, which was intended to "win" debates by framing questions the way he wanted, putting and keeping his opponents on the defensive, and steering the later portions of the debate along the lines he wanted. The strategy often worked, because his opponents usually weren't skilled debaters. He fared worst in those debates where his opponents were prepared for his tactics. (By the way, in a formal debate which has strict rules, his strategy would never work.You win debates by proving your point rather than challenging opponents to prove their handpicked framing of the issue wrong.)

The doctor knew what Hawley was up to and tried to avoid the trap, rather awkwardly and inartfully. (She's not a skilled debater either.) Whereupon Hawley and his followers, (including Flock and other righties on this Bored), pivoted from a possible subsequent discussion on trans issues into an attempt to tear down the doctor's credibility as a medical and scientific expert. That doctor knows more about the issues she testified about than Hawley, Flock, and everyone else on this Bored (with the probable exception of Weyoun) combined. And I'm very confident that the doctor knows more than RFK Jr.'s handpicked panel of flunky quacks who are promoting junk science to the detriment of the American public. (I would have no qualms whatsoever about visiting this doctor for medical treatment.) And Hawley knew that and I'm pretty sure Flock knows that (although he'll probably defensively react by saying "how dare you claim you know what I'm thinking") Hawley and his followers rather adroitly (and illogically) turned her responses into "proof" her testimony and qualifications were worthless.

So, Flock, take your victory lap, for whatever it's worth. You haven't proved anything about the doctor's qualifications. You haven't proved anything about the safety of abortion pills. You haven't proved anything about any trans issue. The only thing you've "proved" is that Charlie Kirk's tactics sometimes work to obfuscate genuine issues. And in doing so, you've indirectly shown you know less about what you're talking about than several members of this Bored who have treated your nonsense as a serious question and tried to make a serious response that won't leave them open to "gotcha" followups.

Or perhaps Hawley was just attempting to show the expectations folks should have about the testimony this doctor was about to give, that her testimony would be biased politically and not firmily based on science. I think he did show that. She refused to answer simple questions with the correct science supporting the answer due to her politics so any answer she would give could, and should, be considered biased.

Sort of a base line test, like when giving a polygraph.

Or like when an expert witness is questioned on the witness stand to establish their credentials.

[mrkelley23]

Here we go.
Let's say I ask: Do bears shit in the woods? Yes or no?

Leftist answers:
What are you going to tell the bears in zoos? Are you excluding them?
You haven't defined what kind of bear-grizzly, black, koala?
You are a racist.
Some might shit in a clearing or on some humans property. What will you say to them, you bearophobe?


I am not saying anything to anyone. I asked a simple question that has a simple answer. My next question is: why are you so defensive about providing the correct answer?

You have perfectly illustrated here why some folks refuse to be baited into answering "when did you stop beating your wife?" questions. You asked a simple question. I gave a simple answer, once I understood exactly what you were asking. I then provided rationale and evidence for my answer. You condemn the reasoning without refuting it, project all sorts of negative behavior on my part which I have not done and don't intend to do with you or anyone else,and then go on to claim my answer is wrong, without evidence or reasoning -- just "everybody knows this."

[flockofseagulls104]

Here we go.
Let's say I ask: Do bears shit in the woods? Yes or no?

Leftist answers:
What are you going to tell the bears in zoos? Are you excluding them?
You haven't defined what kind of bear-grizzly, black, koala?
You are a racist.
Some might shit in a clearing or on some humans property. What will you say to them, you bearophobe?


I am not saying anything to anyone. I asked a simple question that has a simple answer. My next question is: why are you so defensive about providing the correct answer?

You have perfectly illustrated here why some folks refuse to be baited into answering "when did you stop beating your wife?" questions. You asked a simple question. I gave a simple answer, once I understood exactly what you were asking. I then provided rationale and evidence for my answer. You condemn the reasoning without refuting it, project all sorts of negative behavior on my part which I have not done and don't intend to do with you or anyone else,and then go on to claim my answer is wrong, without evidence or reasoning -- just "everybody knows this."

Gimme a break, for Christ sake. Intersex people are not biological males, and yes, they ARE an exception. I guess your answer would be that there are some bears that don't have a colon and can't defecate normally. Can we have a real conversation without going into a corner of left field? Accept the common, universally accepted of what "is" is for once.

[mrkelley23]

If it was"universally" accepted, wouldn't that mean everyone accepted it?

The exceptions are human beings. They deserve to be treated equally under the law. And you can cry all you want about intersex people not being men, but lots of them have an X and a Y chromosome. By your own definition, they are men. So once again, the very simple answer to your very simple question is yes.

[Beebs52]

If it was"universally" accepted, wouldn't that mean everyone accepted it?

The exceptions are human beings. They deserve to be treated equally under the law. And you can cry all you want about intersex people not being men, but lots of them have an X and a Y chromosome. By your own definition, they are men. So once again, the very simple answer to your very simple question is yes.

Which question?

[tlynn78]

Here's the end point. Period.

PROVE ME WRONG:
As Hawley says, if you cannot emphatically state that biological men cannot get pregnant, you have zero, nada, not one ounce of credibility on any other subject.

i hesitate to get involved in this because I know my words won't change anyone's mind, but here I go.

Can a biological man get pregnant? With our current state of medical knowledge I would say no. But it may be possible in the future to allow this - surgery to add a uterus, fallopian tubes, etc. and hormones to facilitate the process.

But here are two question for you, flock: What about "biological women" who can't get pregnant for one reason or another? If pregnancy is the only criterion for judging who is male and who is female, what do you say to the infertile, those who have had hysterectomies because of medical problems, or for other reasons cannot conceive?

Sure, Ear. If a biological woman gets a hysterectomy, or can't bear children for some other reason, boom, she's a man, man! "Incredible"...never a more appropriate thread title.

[earendel]

Here's the end point. Period.

PROVE ME WRONG:
As Hawley says, if you cannot emphatically state that biological men cannot get pregnant, you have zero, nada, not one ounce of credibility on any other subject.

i hesitate to get involved in this because I know my words won't change anyone's mind, but here I go.

Can a biological man get pregnant? With our current state of medical knowledge I would say no. But it may be possible in the future to allow this - surgery to add a uterus, fallopian tubes, etc. and hormones to facilitate the process.

But here are two question for you, flock: What about "biological women" who can't get pregnant for one reason or another? If pregnancy is the only criterion for judging who is male and who is female, what do you say to the infertile, those who have had hysterectomies because of medical problems, or for other reasons cannot conceive?

Sure, Ear. If a biological woman gets a hysterectomy, or can't bear children for some other reason, boom, she's a man, man! "Incredible"...never a more appropriate thread title.

My point is this - flock seems to define "woman" as someone who can get pregnant. He even later spoke about "biological men" who couldn't produce eggs or have a womb. If getting pregnant is the only criterion for judging who is a woman, then again I ask, what about those who have XX chromosomes but can't get pregnant?

[mrkelley23]

If it was"universally" accepted, wouldn't that mean everyone accepted it?

The exceptions are human beings. They deserve to be treated equally under the law. And you can cry all you want about intersex people not being men, but lots of them have an X and a Y chromosome. By your own definition, they are men. So once again, the very simple answer to your very simple question is yes.

Which question?

The one that set him off to start this thread: can a man get pregnant. He's aggravated because I've demonstrated that sometimes, a simple question does not have a simple answer. Once he defined a "man" as someone with an X chromosome and a Y chromosome, I answered his very simple question.

[tlynn78]

If it was"universally" accepted, wouldn't that mean everyone accepted it?

The exceptions are human beings. They deserve to be treated equally under the law. And you can cry all you want about intersex people not being men, but lots of them have an X and a Y chromosome. By your own definition, they are men. So once again, the very simple answer to your very simple question is yes.

And this illustrates why most of us don't bother to engage in real discussion with most of you. A biological male cannot, with current technology, conceive and/or give birth. That fact is not the lone determinater for being male, it's simply a fact. One of many that differentiate between male and female. Intersex individuals are not "biological males," they are anomalies. And yes, for the doc's tender feelers, that is true no matter what color they are.

[tlynn78]

i hesitate to get involved in this because I know my words won't change anyone's mind, but here I go.

Can a biological man get pregnant? With our current state of medical knowledge I would say no. But it may be possible in the future to allow this - surgery to add a uterus, fallopian tubes, etc. and hormones to facilitate the process.

But here are two question for you, flock: What about "biological women" who can't get pregnant for one reason or another? If pregnancy is the only criterion for judging who is male and who is female, what do you say to the infertile, those who have had hysterectomies because of medical problems, or for other reasons cannot conceive?

Sure, Ear. If a biological woman gets a hysterectomy, or can't bear children for some other reason, boom, she's a man, man! "Incredible"...never a more appropriate thread title.

My point is this - flock seems to define "woman" as someone who can get pregnant. He even later spoke about "biological men" who couldn't produce eggs or have a womb. If getting pregnant is the only criterion for judging who is a woman, then again I ask, what about those who have XX chromosomes but can't get pregnant?

Flick didn't "define ""women"" as someone..." He asked a straightforward question, just as Hawley did, and you (and that witness) will not answer truthfully.

[flockofseagulls104]

Just the fact that so many of you can't help but concoct every type of irrelevant scenario, make imaginative references to what you think I'm referring to, and cannot stick to the subject instead of answering the question shows how fucked up our society has become.

I do not want to be on the team that cannot admit that biological men cannot and are not equipped to have babies without going on some kind of political rant of their own, while accusing the question itself of being political. It is a FACT that men cannot have babies, not a political stance.

[wbtravis007]

What, y’all don’t believe in miraculous conception?

Interesting.

[earendel]

Sure, Ear. If a biological woman gets a hysterectomy, or can't bear children for some other reason, boom, she's a man, man! "Incredible"...never a more appropriate thread title.

My point is this - flock seems to define "woman" as someone who can get pregnant. He even later spoke about "biological men" who couldn't produce eggs or have a womb. If getting pregnant is the only criterion for judging who is a woman, then again I ask, what about those who have XX chromosomes but can't get pregnant?

Flick didn't "define ""women"" as someone..." He asked a straightforward question, just as Hawley did, and you (and that witness) will not answer truthfully.

Under current conditions, a biological man cannot get pregnant. There - are you happy? But getting pregnant isn't all that defines what a woman is, and chromosomes are not all that defines gender (which is distinct from sex). And to be clear, I don't believe that transgender females should be allowed to compete against biological females.

[flockofseagulls104]

My point is this - flock seems to define "woman" as someone who can get pregnant. He even later spoke about "biological men" who couldn't produce eggs or have a womb. If getting pregnant is the only criterion for judging who is a woman, then again I ask, what about those who have XX chromosomes but can't get pregnant?

Flick didn't "define ""women"" as someone..." He asked a straightforward question, just as Hawley did, and you (and that witness) will not answer truthfully.

Under current conditions, a biological man cannot get pregnant. There - are you happy? But getting pregnant isn't all that defines what a woman is, and chromosomes are not all that defines gender (which is distinct from sex). And to be clear, I don't believe that transgender females should be allowed to compete against biological females.

Thanks for answering the question. So why are you on the team that doesn't understand that, and encourages children to undergo life-changing drug therapies and surgeries? Don't deny it. It's thoroughly documented

I have said from the beginning that sex and gender are two distinct things. Sex is determined at birth and cannot be changed. Gender is different. But your team confuses that and wants to force the issue into law. Any adult individual can pretend to be a different gender than their biological sex if they want. An adult can choose to undergo surgeries and drug therapies if they want. But they cannot force the rest of society to pretend with them. They cannot force the taxpayer to foot the bill. And they cannot change the laws to accomodate their proclivities at the expense of science, biology and safety of the biological sexes. It's NOT just in sports. For example, anyone who doesn't see what's wrong with putting male convicts into female prisons is absolutely insane. There is no rational argument for that, yet it is happening because of your team. That is the objection.

[mrkelley23]

Flick didn't "define ""women"" as someone..." He asked a straightforward question, just as Hawley did, and you (and that witness) will not answer truthfully.

Under current conditions, a biological man cannot get pregnant. There - are you happy? But getting pregnant isn't all that defines what a woman is, and chromosomes are not all that defines gender (which is distinct from sex). And to be clear, I don't believe that transgender females should be allowed to compete against biological females.

Thanks for answering the question. So why are you on the team that doesn't understand that, and encourages children to undergo life-changing drug therapies and surgeries? Don't deny it. It's thoroughly documented

I have said from the beginning that sex and gender are two distinct things. Sex is determined at birth and cannot be changed. Gender is different. But your team confuses that and wants to force the issue into law. Any adult individual can pretend to be a different gender than their biological sex if they want. An adult can choose to undergo surgeries and drug therapies if they want. But they cannot force the rest of society to pretend with them. They cannot force the taxpayer to foot the bill. And they cannot change the laws to accomodate their proclivities at the expense of science, biology and safety of the biological sexes. It's NOT just in sports. For example, anyone who doesn't see what's wrong with putting male convicts into female prisons is absolutely insane. There is no rational argument for that, yet it is happening because of your team. That is the objection.

You say that it is thoroughly documented that children are being encouraged to have life changing drug therapies and surgeries. Would you please share your source on that?

Much of what you say in the second paragraph I do agree with. I think one of the things that holds back reasonable discourse on this Bored is that one team assumes (and both teams are equally guilty) that just because a person is on the other side, they automatically believe and support every position of the other side, even the most extreme. And we just don't. This is one case where I wish the language had not evolved from the 1970s era. To me, transsexual means someone who has had life-altering surgery or otherwise can no longer function as their assigned sex. A transgender person is someone who chooses to live their life as the opposite gender, but hasn't had body-altering surgery or permanent chemical procedures. A transvestite is someone who likes to, for one reason or another, dress up in clothes of the opposite gender from time to time. Instead, we try to lump everything under the label transgender, and it makes for more confusion and ill feeling.

[mrkelley23]

If it was"universally" accepted, wouldn't that mean everyone accepted it?

The exceptions are human beings. They deserve to be treated equally under the law. And you can cry all you want about intersex people not being men, but lots of them have an X and a Y chromosome. By your own definition, they are men. So once again, the very simple answer to your very simple question is yes.

And this illustrates why most of us don't bother to engage in real discussion with most of you. A biological male cannot, with current technology, conceive and/or give birth. That fact is not the lone determinater for being male, it's simply a fact. One of many that differentiate between male and female. Intersex individuals are not "biological males," they are anomalies. And yes, for the doc's tender feelers, that is true no matter what color they are.

"anomalies." Are they male or female? It's a simple question. Answer it.

[Beebs52]

If it was"universally" accepted, wouldn't that mean everyone accepted it?

The exceptions are human beings. They deserve to be treated equally under the law. And you can cry all you want about intersex people not being men, but lots of them have an X and a Y chromosome. By your own definition, they are men. So once again, the very simple answer to your very simple question is yes.

And this illustrates why most of us don't bother to engage in real discussion with most of you. A biological male cannot, with current technology, conceive and/or give birth. That fact is not the lone determinater for being male, it's simply a fact. One of many that differentiate between male and female. Intersex individuals are not "biological males," they are anomalies. And yes, for the doc's tender feelers, that is true no matter what color they are.

"anomalies." Are they male or female? It's a simple question. Answer it.

They're hermaphrodites. "an organism having sex organs or other sexual characteristics that are not clearly male or female, either abnormally or (in the case of some organisms) as the natural condition."

[earendel]

Thanks for answering the question. So why are you on the team that doesn't understand that, and encourages children to undergo life-changing drug therapies and surgeries? Don't deny it. It's thoroughly documented.

This "team" thing is binary thinking and unworthy of you. Yes, I know mrkelley started this, but surely you realize that there is nuance in this issue. And I agree with mrkelley that you need proof of your statement.

I have said from the beginning that sex and gender are two distinct things. Sex is determined at birth and cannot be changed. Gender is different. But your team confuses that and wants to force the issue into law. Any adult individual can pretend to be a different gender than their biological sex if they want. An adult can choose to undergo surgeries and drug therapies if they want. But they cannot force the rest of society to pretend with them. They cannot force the taxpayer to foot the bill. And they cannot change the laws to accomodate their proclivities at the expense of science, biology and safety of the biological sexes. It's NOT just in sports. For example, anyone who doesn't see what's wrong with putting male convicts into female prisons is absolutely insane. There is no rational argument for that, yet it is happening because of your team. That is the objection.

Do you know any transgender people? They aren't pretending. Pretending is me thinking I'm a Jedi Knight when I play with my light saber. But I know that it's pretend. Transgender people undergo transition surgery and take hormone therapy because they believe - no, they KNOW - that their biological sex is not who they are. That said, I do not think children should be given surgery or drugs.

[mrkelley23]

And this illustrates why most of us don't bother to engage in real discussion with most of you. A biological male cannot, with current technology, conceive and/or give birth. That fact is not the lone determinater for being male, it's simply a fact. One of many that differentiate between male and female. Intersex individuals are not "biological males," they are anomalies. And yes, for the doc's tender feelers, that is true no matter what color they are.

"anomalies." Are they male or female? It's a simple question. Answer it.

They're hermaphrodites. "an organism having sex organs or other sexual characteristics that are not clearly male or female, either abnormally or (in the case of some organisms) as the natural condition."

Nonono. Didn't you read flock and tgirl's posts? It's a simple question with only two possible answers. No shades of gray, no colon-less bears, not allowed.